Free-spirited six-year-old Moonee and her young mother Halley live in a motel on the outskirts of Orlando, Florida. In contrast to the families vacationing at nearby Walt Disney World, Moonee occupies her summer days by helping her mother hawk bootlegged goods to unsuspecting tourists and making trouble with other motel-dwelling children. With a ragtag and often burnt-out cast of characters, The Florida Project portrays the challenges of American poverty, the frustrations of familial (ir)responsibility, and the limits of a child’s ability to make the best of broken circumstances.

Now 26 years old, Scout (Jeanne Louise) returns home to Maycomb, Alabama, where she encounters many changes. Her brother has died. Her heroic father, Atticus Finch, who defended the wrongly accused man in the earlier acclaimed novel (To Kill a Mockingbird) is still carrying on his legal practice and his role as a wise pillar of the community, despite his advancing age. He is approached to defend a black man who has killed a white man in a motor vehicle accident.

Scout renews contact with old friends, including Hank who still hopes that she will marry him. The old places spark memories told in deftly written flashbacks that beautifully evoke the atmosphere of a small southern town in the heat of summer. Some flashbacks– an imagined pregnancy following a chaste kiss and an escapade with falsies at a school dance-- are hilarious renditions of ‘tweenage’ angst, typical of any time or place.

But Scout is disgusted by the social spying, the rumors that easily build, and the latent racial hatred that lurks everywhere. The memories of her “color-blind” childhood make her confrontation with the cruel, racial tensions in the more recent time all the more upsetting. Even her beloved nanny, Calpurnia, is now alienated with distrust and repressed anger. The climax comes when she witnesses her father, as chair of a meeting, give the floor to a notorious racist. Scout confronts him and he launches into a long self-justifying and not entirely convincing defense of the need for free speech. The disquieting conclusion is ambiguous.

Miriam Himmelfarb is the middle of three daughters of holocaust survivors Rachael and Daniel, who are secular Jews born in Europe. Safe in the house on Lippincott in an immigrant neighborhood of Toronto, Sondra, Miriam and Esther grow up hearing their parents’ nightmare screams every night. They bask in genuine affection and learn to respect the horrific history of their elders whose needs come to dominate their own. Their father angers at the slightest provocation, and every tiny domestic issue is a reminder of Auschwitz. These conditions become their own form of trauma. Daniel allows his child-abusing younger brother into the home where he secretly molests Sondra. The girl flees to live on the street in prostitution and addiction. Esther turns to religion and marries within the faith, finding comfort in traditions. Following in the footsteps of her professor mother, Miriam becomes a philosopher. She briefly moves out during her studies to live in the avant-gardeRochdale College, but she is unable to build a life outside the parental home and returns, denying herself independence and love. The loss of her mother by carefully planned suicide is terrifying.

In Melbourne, Australia, Hector and Aisha are hosting a big barbecue for their families and friends who come with several children. Hector’s somewhat controlling Greek parents appear too, bringing along too much food and their chronic disapproval of his non-Greek wife despite the two healthy grandkids and her success as a veterinarian. Aisha’s less-well-off friends, Rosie and Gary, arrive with their cherubic-looking son, Hugo, who at age three, is still breastfed and being raised according to a hippie parenting style that manages to be both sheltering and permissive. Hugo has a meltdown over a cricket game, which the older kids have let him join. He raises a bat to strike another child, when Hector’s cousin, Harry, intervenes to protect his own son. Hugo kicks Harry who slaps him. Rosie and Gary call it child abuse and notify the police.

The aftermath of the slap is told in several fulsome chapters, each devoted to a different individual’s perspective: among them, Hector, Aisha, Harry, Rosie, Hector’s father, and the teenaged babysitter Connie. Harry is rendered miserable by Rosie and Gary’s aggressive lawsuit against him. Connie believes she is in love with a philandering, substance-abusing Hector who in turn has unscrupulously led her on. Recognizing its alienation of her friends, Rosie sticks to her legal pursuit of Harry although she worries about the drain on their meagre finances, the exposure of Gary's drinking, and the anticipated criticism of their parenting style. Aisha is fed up with her husband’s edginess and submission to his parents, and she flirts with escape in the form of a handsome stranger at a conference.

In 2006, Emergency medicine trainee, Damon, and his wife, Trisha, have two boys, Thai (age 4) and Callum (age 2.5). All is well in their lives until Callum begins vomiting for no apparent reason. He is found to have medulloblastoma, an aggressive brain tumour, for which the only possible hope for a cure comes from surgery and six cycles of ever more arduous chemotherapy with stem cell recovery at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children. The little family moves to Toronto and commits to supporting Callum as best they can, ensuring that he is never alone even during his long weeks of reverse isolation. They also try to keep Thai nearby, involved and aware, with the help of a local school and grandparents. But Callum dies during the last cycle of treatment. Saddened, exhausted, and bereaved, Damon and Trisha go back to their home town and try to (re)construct their lives, slowly returning to studies and work. They find meaning in creating tangible and intangible memorials to their lost son, and they find purpose in the more difficult task of moving forward, never losing the pain of grief. They adopt a little girl. Damon knows that Callum is always with him and the experience of his illness and death has dramatically infused his work as a physician.

The world is a big place – 7.4 billion people
and counting. As much as we all enjoy the game of finding our doppelganger in a
crowd, there probably isn’t anyone in the world who is exactly like us. With a
genetic code of over 3 billion base pairs, of which there are innumerable
permutations, we would be hard pressed to find a clone of ourselves even if the
world had 7 trillion people. The exception is if you were born with an
identical sibling. But then again, you would know if you had a twin. Wouldn’t
you?The documentary Three Identical Strangers tells the unbelievable story of Bobby
Shafran, Eddy Galland, and David Kellman – three identical triplets who were
separated at birth and serendipitously reunited at the age of 19. The film
takes us through the circumstances of their reunion, highlighting the brothers’
instant rapport over their similarities and the ensuing fame resulting from the
public fascination with their extraordinary story. It began as a
euphoria-filled saga complete with talk show interviews, movie cameos, and even
a successful restaurant which they called “Triplets”.

The honeymoon phase ended in horrific fashion
once the parents of the respective siblings began asking questions as to why
the brothers were separated in the first place. A journalist who had been
investigating the triplets’ adoption agency, Louise Wise Services, helped to
uncover the details of an elaborate study performed by a child psychiatrist
named Dr. Peter Neubauer. In this study, each brother was placed into a home
which had another adoptive sister, and specifically assigned to a family of
lower, middle, and upper-class backgrounds. While the exact details of the
study objective remain unknown, it appears that the study was trying to determine
whether psychiatric illness was correlated more strongly with genetics or with
developmental environment; this is referred to colloquially as a “nature vs.
nurture” experiment.

The implications were earth-shattering. The brothers
struggled to cope with the realization that they had been marionettes in some
sort of sick experiment, with Dr. Neubauer pulling the strings the whole time.
Even worse was the fact that there were possibly several more identical
siblings with the same story who were deprived of their biological soul mate,
all at the behest of Neubauer and his associates. In fact, other sets of
identical siblings were eventually made aware of the experiment, and did have
the chance to meet, albeit many years after their birth.

The triplets also learned that their biological
mother had serious psychiatric problems – hence their inclusion in the study.
All three brothers had behavioral difficulties as adolescents, and it was distressing
to consider whether their issues may have been exacerbated by the separation
anxiety they experienced upon being separated at birth. In particular, Eddy
suffered from worsening episodes of bipolar disorder throughout his life. In
1995, at the age of 33, he committed suicide. He is notably absent for the
duration of the documentary, with Bobby and David narrating much of the film. Today,
they are still trying to uncover the particulars of Dr. Neubauer’s study, but
the research records remain under seal at Yale University until 2066. They may
never know the full extent of what was done to them and why.

Andrew Solomon’s 2012 book Far From the Treeis a study of families with children who are different in all sorts of ways from their parents and siblings to degrees that altered and even threatened family functions and relationships. Years after its publication, director Rachel Dretzin collaborated with Solomon to produce this documentary based on his book. At the time of filming, the children were already adults or were well into their teens. The film looks at how the families came to accept these children and how they sought—with varying success—happiness.

The documentary focuses on five family scenarios: homosexuality (Solomon’s own story); Down syndrome; dwarfism; murder; and autism. Anyone in these families or anyone who knew these families would never invoke the familiar idiom “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” when talking about these children. These apples fell far from the tree, and Solomon builds on that twist to the idiom to characterize the relationship between the affected children and their families as “horizontal.” By extension, Solomon characterizes the relationship of children who are not different from their parents and siblings in any appreciable manner as “vertical.” Only one of the original characters from the book appears in the documentary; the other families are newly “cast.” The film captures the lives of these families with all their challenges and successes, and intercuts footage from home videos the families provided. Dretzin also filmed interviews with parents and in some cases their children. The footage and interviews show how families evolved in their acceptance of their children and their situations as best they could. The best was still heartbreak for some, but real happiness was achieved for others.

In 1632, at the age of only 26, Rembrandt finished a large (85.2 in × 66.7 in) oil painting that was destined to become one of his best known works and certainly one of the linchpins in the nexus between the graphic arts and the medical humanities. "The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp" depicts the dissection of the flexor tendons of the left arm of a cadaver by the eponymous doctor while an attentive audience of his peers, identifiable members of the medical and anatomical community of early 17th century Amsterdam, looks on. Nina Siegal's novel tells her imagined back story of this richly illustrated anatomy lesson which, once you read her captivating novel, will make you ask yourself, as I did, why no one has thought fit to do so heretofore.

Using multiple first person narrators, Siegal examines the characters (some historical, others wholly fictional) and events leading up to the anatomy lesson and Rembrandt's artistic rendering of it. Inventing a life for Aris Kindt (born Adriaen Adriaenszoon), the historically real career criminal whose recently judicial hanging provides the body we see in the painting, Siegal provides him with Flora, a lover who is carrying his illegitimate child at the time of his public - and quite raucous - hanging. Growing up in Leiden, in the same neighborhood as Flora and Rembrandt himself, Kindt was the physically and emotionally abused son of a leather worker and, in Siegal's imagination, a petty but persistent thief hanged for his inveterate and irremediable life of crime. As was the custom of the day, his body was legally assigned to an anatomist for public dissection. With a non-linear narrative, organized into brief chapters entitled for body parts, Siegal traces the beginnings of three of the protagonists - Kindt, Flora, and Rembrandt. She constructs how their lives intersect not only before, during and after the hanging, but also in more philosophical strokes, namely the medical, theological and artistic tapestry on which this image rests. There are several minor characters, like Tulp and his family; Jan Fetchet, the "famulus" responsible for securing and preparing Kindt's body immediately following the hanging; and even René Descartes, who seems to have been in town during this momentous occasion pursuing his own polymathic research, which included anatomy at the time. Siegal adds a few reports dictated by a fictional modern- day conservator offering her interpretation of many of the details of Rembrandt's masterpiece, details that serve to highlight aspects of Siegal's narrative, such as the possible artistic re-implantation of Kindt's amputated right hand.

The author is a pediatric oncologist who grew up in the
United States, went to medical school in Israel, returned to the United States
for fellowship and to begin practice, and then, feeling unsettled both
personally and professionally, moved to Israel for a “dream job” opportunity
and out of a deep sense of belonging.
The twelve chapters of this book catalogue Dr. Waldman’s journey along
both domains, the personal and the professional. We get to meet his patients, children drawn
from the various constituent populations of Israel: Jewish, Muslim, and Christian, religious and
secular.

Each chapter tells the story of
a patient (or two), framed within a brief narrative of the history, religious
aspects, and geopolitical vagaries of the city of Jerusalem as well as the
nation.
The simultaneous and chronologically coherent narrative
thread of the book is the author’s growth into his job, his interactions with
the realities of present-day Israeli government and society, his exposure to
and subsequent decision to devote himself to pediatric palliative care, and
ultimately the career decisions he has to make.

In 1869 in the remote northern Scottish village of Culduie,
teenager Roderick (Roddy) Macrae brutally murders his neighbor, Lachlan “Broad’
Mackenzie, and two others. He readily admits to his crime, motivated, he says, by
a desire to end the dreadful vendetta that Broad waged against his widowed father.
The sympathetic defence lawyer, Andrew Simpson, urges him to write an account
of the events leading up to the tragedy.

Roddy agrees. In a surprisingly articulate essay, the young
crofter describes his motive, originating with his birth and escalating through
the lad’s mercy killing of an injured sheep belonging to Broad (interpreted as
wanton), Broad’s sexual torment of his sister and mother, and his abuse of
power as a constable that strips the family of land, crops, and finally their home.
Given Roddy’s passivity, intelligence, and previously clean
record, Simpson prepares a defence of temporary insanity and brings two
physicians to assess his client, one a purported expert in the new field of
medical criminology. The jury trial proceeds with an almost verbatim transcript derived
from newspaper sources. The reader is able to juxtapose Roderick’s account with
that presented in court. To report the outcome here would reveal too much.